The best of luck to Iemma and Debnam

Peter Debnam and Morris Iemma are both remarkably lucky men. And they both owe their extraordinary luck to one man: John Brogden. The former Liberal leader would be about to win office if he hadn't been forced to resign after directing a racist epithet at the then just-retired Premier Bob Carr's wife. And then the Liberals chose to replace him with someone even more obscure than Morris Iemma - and who'd have thought that was possible?

But it's not for nothing that the NSW Liberals have been in the wilderness for over a decade. In Peter Debnam they have found a leader who has been unable to make electoral hay out of one of the most disastrous governments ever seen in Macquarie St. So instead of a Brogden walkover, it's going to be a four-week gaffe-off between the two new boys. We should be so lucky.

Morris Iemma was so unknown to voters when he became Premier that the ALP had to commission special ads explaining how to pronounce his surname. They were extraordinarily lame, and probably sprang from the same chronically infertile minds that gave us their clunky, apologetic slogan "More to do but heading in the right direction". It's come in for much criticism in the media - but to give it some credit, at least the first half is right.

John Brogden was well known to voters, by contrast - they'd rejected him in a landslide in 2003. Still, he'd been Opposition Leader for three years, and was moderate enough to appeal to many in the electorate. With general disquiet at Bob Carr's transport and healthcare failures, Brogden was in the box seat to take over, especially against an unknown like Iemma. The Coalition was regularly polling ahead of Labor, and pundits were tipping the new Premier to follow the ignominious examples of Barrie Unsworth and John Fahey, similarly lacklustre mid-term appointees who weren't re-elected.

But they hadn't counted on Morris Iemma's diabolical luck. The guy may well have done a deal with the Devil. (Well, he certainly did a deal with the NSW Right, which is much the same thing.) First the more qualified candidates for the leadership - the guys we'd had actually heard of before, like Craig Knowles and Michael Costa - ruled themselves out through a succession of scandals, and then Brogden made that career-ending quip about Helena Carr. Mail-Order Bridegate was a moment of political disaster to rival Alexander Downer's legendary "things that batter" gaffe, and perhaps even Mal Meninga's legendary 28-second career in ACT politics.

Brogden's comment - made to a bar full of journalists - was appalling, of course. But people have said worse (or much the same, in, Tony Greig's case) and survived. Personally I found his successor's comments about rounding up Muslims at dawn substantially more offensive, but picking on Muslims seems to be a vote-winner in Australian politics these days.

So Brogden helpfully removed himself from the equation. But Iemma's luck didn't end there. The Liberals passed over the long-serving Barry O'Farrell, and settled for a bloke from egalitarian Vaucluse called Peter Debnam, whose obscurity made Morris Iemma look like Bono. And as lucky as the Premier was, Debnam's rise to the top is surely even greater a fluke. I once dubbed Morris Iemma the Stephen Bradbury of NSW politics, but Debnam would be even more deserving of the epithet - if he was likely to win anything.

On Labor's record, this should be a one-sided election. The broad dissatisfaction with the Carr legacy (which inspired the meekly apologetic tone of Iemma's slogan) combined with the remarkable succession of scandals under the new Premier - Scully, Orkopoulos and Chaytor the most prominent dominoes to topple - would surely have put a halfway competent leader like Brogden miles ahead by now. But every gaffe of Iemma's seems to be matched by an even bigger disaster from Debnam. Most foolishly, while riding high after picking up several unexpected scalps, Debnam inexplicably tried to add another, Attorney-General Bob Debus, using the testimony of a convicted child sex offender. Extraordinarily, this left him even further behind Iemma's government in the polls. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Both potential Premiers on offer this March have proven extraordinarily lucky - Iemma not to be on the verge of getting bundled out of office in four weeks' time, and Debnam extremely fortunate to be in the leadership at all. With such bountiful beginner's luck apparent on both sides, it seems that the misfortune in NSW politics is currently restricted to the voters.

Posted
by Dom KnightFebruary 26, 2007 6:11 AM

LATEST COMMENTS

Hey, the chance to write an entertaining, witty blog about the state election - does someone at SMH hate you?

Posted by: big flea on February 26, 2007 6:33 AM

Hey Dom,
Over here, and up at sparrow as well. !!
( just two or three blogs on the topic, then we are into the group email...OK ?? )

If you keep going on this roundabout of success, you might even end up doing Today Tonight. If so, we will all chip in and buy you a chain.
I have to be careful when I say anything about Debnam, I am extremely Anti, he is a fool, with no policies except to cater to the rich and make the poor pay. Sound familiar ? And his accusations in the Parliament against Bob Debus were low and sleazy, almost beyond belief.
Iemma and the Govt have problems, sure...but God Help Us if Debnam wins.

Posted by: Banjo Ukelele on February 26, 2007 8:20 AM

I don't want to vote Liberal or Labor. They're both as bad as eachother.

I guess that leaves the independents or greens.

Dom, how about some of your witty opinion pieces on the alternatives to Labor or Liberal?

Posted by: Blah! on February 26, 2007 9:25 AM

It's definitely a 'lesser of two evils' election this time around, between Morris Thingy, and Peter What's His Name.

It's such a trainwreck to watch. Who can cripple their own party's chances faster?

Posted by: Zahri on February 26, 2007 10:11 AM

You guys are at it again. Masters of media spin, so overwhelmingly superficial.
Where is the substance? NSW
is in crisis in practically all fronts, and you now talk about one gaffe, the same way you buried John Brogden. And you now say "pity". Wake up
and tell people we really need a change of government.

Posted by: Jess Diaz on February 26, 2007 11:19 AM

What a choice we poor voters face!

Iemma a nobody that leads a party that sold NSW out to developers and have sent the state broke. Or Debnam, a right wing, religious nut who will only cater to the rich and conservative out there.
This election should be a whitewash for the Libs if Brogden was still there. Instead it is probably the most boring state election I have ever witnessed. The voters arent interested, most people I talk to have the same opinion as I do. Which is that I dont want to vote for either. So what do we all do? As someone who has never voted Liberal in my life I find it so hard to be stuck with not wanting to vote Labor either.
But I probably will because there is no other choice really. I have to decide which would be worse.
More of the same from an incompetent government? Or vote for a boring, right wing , conservative? (Oh , wait that is both Iemma and Debnam)
See what I mean?

Posted by: tess on February 26, 2007 11:35 AM

Has there ever been two more inelectable politicians in NSW history than Iemma and Debnam?

Far too often, in state and federal politics, we talk about voting for 'the lesser of two evils'... Is it just me, or should we demand a little more from our 'leaders'??

Posted by: huge on February 26, 2007 11:49 AM

ahhh.. The Bradburys of Politics.
top notch.

Im worried about these two.
Who are they really?
What do they stand for?
What are their key policy initiatives?

Questions im sure we will NOT find out in the run in to this election.

Posted by: phatmaniac on February 26, 2007 11:59 AM

Both parties suck, neither deserves the pleasure of leading this great state. The premier state... Debnam is not leadership material. I reckon Brogden should have stayed and battled through the bad press over the Helena comments - they were funny and probably true
I feel sorry for Iemma, only because I would have much preffered to see Scully or Knowles get 'boned' by the electorate.

that other comment about the rich getting everything and the poor paying for it, is true... I mean Bob Carr now gets his car and office paid for by the tax payer as well as being a fat cat salary man at the Mac Bank... So he will be in line for all those "priveleges"

Posted by: Travis on February 26, 2007 12:03 PM

Debnam's mouth runs off before his brain is in gear. First he's going to fix everything in one day, now he's giving away the money and the public servants he'll need to do it!

Posted by: Millsy on February 26, 2007 12:21 PM

Ah the joy of the choice in March.

In one corner a man who makes Barrie Unsworth look exciting and in the other a man who makes John Howard look open minded.

Bring on the tumbrils and the revolution.

Posted by: Malcolm on February 26, 2007 12:21 PM

Banjo Ukelele,

Typical baseless Marxist rhetoric. Just pathetic. Can you actually give a few examples of polices that cater to the rich and make the poor pay?

Posted by: Frank on February 26, 2007 12:25 PM

a very good article and captures the situation very well. Voters want change after all the errors over PPP scams and water but the Liberal party don't have a leader in Dennam.

Posted by: philv on February 26, 2007 12:33 PM

a very good article and captures the situation very well. Voters want change after all the errors over PPP scams and water but the Liberal party don't have a leader in Debnam.

Posted by: philv on February 26, 2007 12:33 PM

Our problem in Australia is very lazy politcial standards.
Anybody can be a polly provided they win a few votes. They don't have to prove anyhting. They don't have to be educated. They don't have to be qualified for anything.
We have very lazy, non-creative, thoughtless, non-committed "statesmen" as a result.
We have the division of party politics as an aside - "you're wrong" - "no, no, you're wrong". Totally unproductive.
In NSW we have the smell of corruption (nothing anyone can prove of course but it just feels wrong). All these deals with developers at all levels feels bad. The individual is the last thought on the minds of the party politician.
I disagree with Mr Ukelele who says "Debnam, I am extremely Anti, he is a fool, with no policies except to cater to the rich and make the poor pay".
But surely the Labour party has made sure we're all paying more for things we took for granted before the labour party bedded Macquarie Bank et al and the property developers???!
The cost of these deals has been to sacrifice our cities identity - traversed by expensive travel options - polluted by inordinately ordinary, poorly designed filth that is apartment living. In ten years time we will have ghetto living where once was space and low rise. Transport? Hospitals? Public education? A joke. And the one thing they keep banging on about is the one thing I never hear about from anyone I know - crime. My goodness you'd think this was the Middle East the way they've played out the stereotypes. Are we supposed to feel like we're on the brink of civil war? It's not working for me. And where is country NSW represented?
Clean up the schools - the hospitals - the public transport. The REAL things that are affecting everyone I know.
This election looks like making us all pay again. There is no choice.

Posted by: David says on February 26, 2007 12:36 PM

I think this Election is going to be a slow slow slow boil over for the Coalition, just can't see Iemma lasting the distance, he'll either have a total mental breaksdown as he is carrying the whole election alone, or he will remain strong with blind faith till the end.

At the end of the day, we all agree, it's time for NSW to finally move on.

Posted by: Paul on February 26, 2007 12:55 PM

At last, an entertaining and informative piece about the election. As a first time voter in the state level it is refreshing to see a piece like this. I found this article to be impartial. Perhaps a piece comparing the polices would be appropriate (as long as it is written in the same tone and manor)

Posted by: Luke on February 26, 2007 1:01 PM

Let's see: transport, health, and education are in a shambles; ditto infrastructure; double-ditto the NSW economy (which is almost certainly in recession); taxes have never been higher; bureaucracies have never been more bloated; then add ministerial misconduct into the mix.

Have I left anything out???

Oh yes: Iemma says after 12 YEARS there's "More to do...". This is terrifying enough, but then he says "... we're heading in the right direction".

Good lord, hasn't NSW suffered enough???

How bad does it have to get before NSW wakes up to itself, and boots this government from office???

Posted by: John on February 26, 2007 1:08 PM

What a pathetic State of affairs.

We have a government of manifest incompetents that doesn't deserve to be reelected, and an opposition being infiltrated by religious lunatics that doesn't deserve to be elected.

The Liberal Party insiders who helped bring Brogden down look like they will get exactly what they deserve with another likely spell in opposition.

Posted by: redsaunas on February 26, 2007 1:25 PM

I reckon the Democrats and the Greens will pick up a lot of votes in the LC for this election.

Posted by: patrick on February 26, 2007 1:25 PM

"It's definitely a 'lesser of two evils' election "
Posted by: Zahri

I think of it as the "lesser of two weevils".

Posted by: redsaunas on February 26, 2007 1:31 PM

Brogden is twice the premier that Iemma is and could ever could be.

The election should be put back until we have someone decent to vote for. This is the worst NSW has ever seen in my opinion.

Posted by: Rob on February 26, 2007 1:45 PM

The real tragedy is that both the government and opposition are captive to developers, both accept large political donations from them. Of course, these donations are not made out of altruism, the developers expect whoever is in government after the March election to deliver policies and decisions in their favour.

Which party will be the first to reject developer's 'donations' (bribes) and make planning decisions in the interests of NSW, not rich developers.

Ho hum, what a boring article telling us everything we already know. Yes Brogden would have won easily, would probably have been OK as Premier and was knifed by his own party, but before you make him a saint, the racist remark was the last in a line of inappropriate comments and actions, not the first and only.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to enlighten you. Brogden was by no means a saint, just significantly less unimpressive than either of the candidates on offer in this contest.

Posted by: Andrew on February 26, 2007 1:50 PM

I think the voter's dissatifaction with the Iemma government and the lacklustre nature of the Debnam opposition will result in a record vote for the independents.I wouldn't be surprised to see Richard Torbay in my local electorate of New England receive more than 90% of the vote.He should be able to declare himself the winner of the seat on election night about five minutes after the poll closes.

Posted by: Doug Senwick on February 26, 2007 1:52 PM

All of the comments about these two "leaders" is sad but true.

In addition to the comments above it seems that the premier is obsessed with the colour of the ties he dorns each day, and the opposition leader is desparate for somebody to notice that he likes getting around in speedo's

Posted by: ken on February 26, 2007 1:53 PM

I agree David; corruption is in the air. The NSW Government is a joke with scandal after scandal as evidence.
Is low unemployment causing the Libs to have trouble recruiting for the top job?
How hard can it be to capitalise on the string of Labour stuff ups? Why the hell is Debnam campaigning on damn recycled sewage and tax benefits for the rich? Both policies I agree with b.t.w but unlikely to resonate with the majority and giving nothing but ammunition to the incumbent...
Come on Libs, hospitals, schools, public safety! How are you going to fix it? Keep the damn land tax, give my kid a safe school to go to and give me confidence in my states healthcare.

Posted by: Givemeachoice on February 26, 2007 1:55 PM

"...it's going to be a four-week gaffe-off between the two new boys."

Pricesless! Love your work.

Posted by: Steve Bag on February 26, 2007 1:55 PM

The fact that few people know Peter Debnam is a good thing.

None of the current politicans have any personality. I think that personality makes the difference for many voters. Bob Carr looks like a bit like Bill Gates but he had a little personality and I think that's why he was popular. His policies were crap and our state is uckfayed but still he is not hated.

The more exposure I had/have of people like Brogden, Debnam and Iemma, the more I hate them.

I reckon if Debnam can avoid putting his foot in his mouth and can point out all the stuff that's crap without sounding like a hysterical little girl, then Liberal will win. Bring on the dirty adds.

That reminds me of an add I saw when I was 8 years old advertising some late night "dirty movies". I got back up after everyone had gone to bed and watched excitedly with the volume turned down. I watched a dirty harry film and then half way through the movie the dirty dozen, I worked it out *slaps head*.

Posted by: JacORB Effect on February 26, 2007 2:06 PM

IF YOU PEOPLE ARE SO DISGUSTED AT BOTH LIBERAL AND LABOUR, THEN WHY DONT YOU VOTE GREEN. THEY NEVER GET IN BECAUSE AUSTRALIANS ARE SO APATHETIC THEY CAN'T STAND TO THINK THEY CAN CHALLENGE THE STATUS QUO OF THE TWO-PARTY POLITICAL SCANDAL THAT IS AUSTRALIAN POLITICS IN 2007

Posted by: J Brewster on February 26, 2007 2:07 PM

J Brewster, I challenge your caps lock to get disabled.

Posted by: Mark on February 26, 2007 2:27 PM

J Brewster, the reason The Greens never get power is that they are an extreme left wing political party who would send us broke, destroy our lifestyle and leave us undefended in this world. Add to that a national leader who just votes against everything and does not contribute with anything but negative vitriol, then you can see why The Greens will not acheive anything politically.

Until The Greens leave the loony left University Protesting path and start producing policy that the majority of Australian's can accept, then The Greens won't attract enough support from Australians.

Posted by: John on February 26, 2007 2:51 PM

Neither Iemma nor Debnam will be considered lucky if the independents hold the balance of power after the next election and according to my personal surveys, this seems the most likely outcome. It also may be the best outcome for Australia if it gives both the Labor and Liberal parties in all states and federal, the jolt they need to again become representatives of the people rather than representatives of their colleagues, and by this I'm not referring to the average party member, these people seem to have been quietly discarded.

It appears the main aim of these party politicians is to get themselves re-elected by endorsement from the party powerfuls rather than by representing their constituents.

Posted by: Meghan Stevens on February 26, 2007 2:59 PM

“Your vote is your voice” – so why can’t I vote for the “Abolish the State Government Party” ? A group of politicians and a sizable group of spin doctors, lawyers and bureaucrats all paid by NSW taxpayers to raise, debate, review and pass laws that are copies of laws in every other state in Australia - since when did the principles of efficiency and commonsense stop at the steps of State Government? How much is this election and its associated campaigns costing us? On March 25th I certainly won’t be feeling as though I am being represented.

Posted by: WasteOfOurMoney on February 26, 2007 3:08 PM

Ziad Nabil at February 26, 2007 2:47 PM

ok... ok, you talked me into it I'll vote green for once

Posted by: Nick on February 26, 2007 3:10 PM

Debnam vs. Iemma? Could we call this choice the evil of two lessors?

Posted by: Guy on February 26, 2007 3:14 PM

Dull and Duller. Vote Green- at least we might have a tree to sit under when the power for the air con goes off.

Posted by: Blondie on February 26, 2007 3:24 PM

Up until recently, I reckoned voting independent was a good idea. Unfortunately by doing that you end up with a labor government. The same with voting green.

The NSW labor party is the most undeserving bunch of people ever to live in NSW. They are almost a scandal a day party.

By reinstating labor, they will not learn anything, they will continue to mismanage as they have done for the past 12 years. We need to get into a situation where political parties realise that if they don't perform they will be shown the door.

Posted by: Aussie lad on February 26, 2007 3:32 PM

Personification of the policies of the Government is not particularly helpful unless you also look at where they have come from.

The Treasury's view - in fact, Percy Allen's view - that it was unwise to borrow money for new infrastructure, has resulted in infrastructure financed from income or private-public partnership.

I suppose it took a change of Treasury Secretary, a disasterous cross-city tunnel deal, a Premier who is an economist (Iemma) and a control freak for a Treasurer to change the official view so that it is possible to build NSW again.

You might think the rebirth of commonsense financing had happened too late to win the election, but the Opposition has insisted on having a leader (Debnam) with no ability to connect with the electorate, instead of Barry O'Farrell, who has the ability to connect as well as a good grasp of policy and history. Had they picked the right leader, instead of the one who promised the Right Wing power brokers what they wanted to hear, the Opposition might be leading by 10 points, instead of trailing by 5 points.

I think Morris just might get away with it, but most people aren't going to know what they actually think until that moment when they have to choose.

To the bloke who thinks the Greens could ever be a third force: mate, this is politics. You have to be able to compromise, so parties of "principle" are automatically at a disadvantage. Inflexibility is also very unattractive.

Posted by: Toby on February 26, 2007 3:36 PM

What's the point of voting Greens or Independents, where do you think all their preferences end up with LABOR, they are all just Labour but in name...

Posted by: ziceg on February 26, 2007 3:40 PM

Amazing, along come the NSW (dumb as dog *****) electorate shouting, "A plague on both your houses!" as if that will solve the diabolical condition inflicted on us all in the last 10 years. Have a think, people. A vote for independent is a vote for Labor. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Labor. It IS that simple. Stop searching for witticisms. Your state is in trouble.

Posted by: Harold Horvan on February 26, 2007 3:51 PM

posted by Frank at 12.25pm
" baseless Marxist rhetoric "

Hi Frank,... is it OK if I call you Franco ?
Franco, I am quite careful not to use " Marxist rhetoric " on this blog...just in case some might get "Jack" of it. hehehe

If you want examples, the sacking of 20,000 Public Service workers might be a start. But only a start.
He is a Liberal, after all.

Don't worry to analyze my 'rhetoric' (lol) ...your time would be better spent reading and reciting the doctrines of John D Rockefelller, H R Nicholls, and W26.
Be alert, but not alarmed Franco, and don't forget to check under your bed for pinko commies.

Posted by: Banjo Ukelele on February 26, 2007 3:53 PM

Posted by: J Brewster at February 26, 2007 2:07 PM

Vote green? OMG are you serious? I'm great friends with a green politician, though I sure as hell would never vote for them.

Greens do not concern themselves in economics, health, education or anything that a government does. Sure they have a purpose in politics, but as a majority government, they would be disasterous.

In the schools, the kids would dance around a maypole and have no clue about mathematics. The health system would be 100% holistic and no one going into a hospital, would ever come out alive. They'd spend the entire budget on planting trees and buying 30 year old combi vans that suck petrol down as much as a new commodore. The dams would be pulled down and everyone would have rainwater tanks. Freshwater would be as hard to get as it is in Manila or Kathmandu.

But hey, marijuana would be legal too, so no one would care

Posted by: Jumbles on February 26, 2007 3:58 PM

Posted by: JacORB Effect at February 26, 2007 2:06 PM

hehe thats pretty funny.

Wish the Greens would stop writing in capital letters, it makes them look like a bunch of angry children. But saying that, they are probably a little less boring than the main parties so may get my vote (which will then probably go to labour in the local seat anyway).

Posted by: Easy on February 26, 2007 4:21 PM

ziceg: The preferences end up where you direct them. Instead of just voting "1" above the line, get those creaking brain cells into gear and number *every* box yourself. I'll be using that method to make sure the two major parties feature last and second last on my ballot, irrespective of what anyone else wants.

Posted by: J on February 26, 2007 4:33 PM

The 1991 NSW Govt was a great example of a hung parliament when the 3 independents held the balance of power. They set up a charter of accountability and at least tried to make Parliament answerable to the People, not just to developers and big business. They got the Wood Royal Commission into the police launched and only corrupt people would say that it did no good. We see in Victoria where one side has a huge majority that there is no chance of a Royal Commission into the police there. The same here - big majorities to any one party is the enemy of democracy.
I saw in the other daily paper they were talking against a hung parliament. Quite obviously thats because the big end of town cant pick up the phone and tell the Premier what to do when there's a hung parliament. They wouldnt like that and thats why I like it. Its time for Labor and Liberal to be put last on peoples ballot papers. Both are hollow shadows of their former selves and not fit for government without being held to account by a balancing third force. Democracy is a lot of things but it is not efficient, so those who warn against the chaos of a hung parliament should be ignored. Dicatorships are efficient - they should try one of those.

Posted by: w ch on February 26, 2007 4:36 PM

How short the memory banks are in NSW. After the last Carr wreck - the man was feted- it was even suggested he might go to Canberra to save the ALP from itself- the Messiah of the left. No one was asking then where did the money go! It took years for the "astute" voters to even wake up- perhaps only when the architect Carr cynically jumped ship straight into the offices of Macquarie Bank. It is said people get the kind of Government they deserve- this is a classic case. Now we have a choice between a proven bunch of incompetent twits- and a rabid "promise em anything" puppet who is in the clutches of the looney right. John Brogden come back- all is forgiven! Even the "marajuana for all" party is looking decidedly attractive compared with the choice we have now in NSW. Excuse me for saying it- but this frightful situation is all per courtesy of the NSW voters- who are now reaping what they have sowed.

Posted by: Ruxton on February 26, 2007 4:40 PM

The real scandal here is the fact that the media continues to support a disastrous Labor gov't.

Posted by: J on February 26, 2007 4:48 PM

The state governments are just over-glorified road boards - a historical hangover - get rid of them.

As a result, there are currently more than 180 Ministers of the Crown and, curiously, seriously contentious issues tend to get resolved by the judiciary - NOT OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. Why?

Posted by: Faith No More on February 26, 2007 4:54 PM

Iemma's a wimp, and Debnam's abnormal- This is the reason I'm voting informal.

Posted by: Nitpicker on February 26, 2007 5:02 PM

I'm a long time coalition supporter, but I just can't vote for them this time round.

Thank God I live in Newcastle and there are realistic independant options available.

Posted by: Malachi on February 26, 2007 5:06 PM

Looks like my Angel fish will get my vote again.

Posted by: Mudguts on February 26, 2007 5:20 PM

Can the Liberals explain where they are going to find all the money to pay for their promises!!!
20,000 public servants will lose their jobs but they will not pay for all the promises Debnam has made.
New South Wales is not a bad state to live in but if Debnam is let loose it will be a disaster.
Better the devil we know than the devil we do not.
Is there anyone more uninspiring than Debnam?
It appears NSW stands for Sydney only....it used to be Newcastle Sydney and Wollongong but it is now Sydney. God help us West of the Blue Mountains.

Posted by: Robyn on February 26, 2007 5:22 PM

PERHAPS we could just not vote in this election. A mass campaign of civil disobedience at the appalling choice available.

Posted by: kate on February 26, 2007 5:59 PM

Banjo Ukelele,

You are a goose!
Actually... probably more like a leming about to fall off a cliff.

You lefties are so narrow-minded you are blinded by the rhetoric of your parents and grandparents. Its embarrassing that in a society with such advanced opportunities, you still carry the chip on your ancestors' shoulders.

The upcoming state Liberal defeat (massive) will be a direct result of John Howard's sadly misplaced affection for George Bush the Lesser (the only thing that comes the mind when I hear the word "Liberal" these days).

Posted by: Ian on February 26, 2007 6:31 PM

There is still a way that Debnam could win the election - just as either party could guarantee a win in the Federal one later this year, and that is to promise to stop the rorts and perks given to the politicians by the politicians.

If they cut the superannuation to the same level we ordinary folks get, stopped the overseas trips for all but a Minister and then ONLY for them, not their entourage including wife and kids and ONLY if the trip really was necessary for the State or Country, cut the living away perks and the rest of the millions that go into the pollies pockets at all levels of government, not only would they have a sudden boost in popularity, but they could EASILY fund the fixing of Education, Hospitals, Transport and all the other woeful messes currently under their control.

Of course, Debnam would not want to win if the price of the victory was out of HIS pocket. Turnbulls recent immoral rip off demonstrates how greedy and petty our politicians are so don't expect them to actually do us any favours if it costs them more than 10 cents.

Posted by: DavidH on February 26, 2007 6:51 PM

Iâ€™ve never ever voted labour. And certainly wont be this time, BUT who the f**k is Peter Debnam, what a bland individual? Really I'll probably look for someone more right wing than Pauline or just cast an invalid vote. Yep I was a young lib once but how could you vote for this gaggle of incompetents.

Posted by: David on February 26, 2007 6:52 PM

Kick all current seating ministers out. Labor or Liberal.

Neither Debnam nor Iemma should should win their seat.

Go Greens or independent.

Once and for all Labor and Liberal parties should be given a clear message, that their bickering and lack of pro active policies have ruined the premier state. Combine with John Howard and his bow to the rich government has added to the problems at a national level.

It's time NSW we set a precedent.

Posted by: BK on February 26, 2007 7:47 PM

I have always voted labour, but I believe that NSW now needs a change. I do not like Iemma, or the way he cynically responds and deals with issues and problems. It is not good or responsible government.

Unfortunately, while I do not like Iemma, I cannot tolerate Debnam, nor the people who support him.

If Brogden was still there I would have probably voted Liberal for the first time in my life. It is a great concern to me, that the people in the Liberal Party who set out to displace Brogden with Debnam, (who was always going be electorally unpopular) put their own personal agenda ahead of the intersts of the liberal party.

Unfortunately it turns out that the Labour is still the lesser of the two evils.

We know things are unlikely to improve if Iemma is returned and Debnam isn't convincing.

Would love to think the Greens could do it but would agree with others they will put 'Green' issues, whilst important, ahead of some economic, health and education issues.

Perhaps the solution is an increase of independents, making sure that whoever does win the day will have to pay attention to the little guy!

Sad to think that the Libs had it virtually in the bag till John Brogden's stupid mistake in a crowded bar caused the personal and political catastrophe that ended the liberals chances and his career.

Posted by: Shorty on February 26, 2007 8:59 PM

Love the post, Dom. Kudos.

Posted by: Dr G on February 26, 2007 9:12 PM

Debnam or Iemma

Woe is NSW

I would have gladly voted for Brogden who represents true Liberal values and really don't care how many times he insults Carr's wife. I'm more offended by Debnam's remarks on Muslims many times over.

Now it's a choice of either the conservative Tories representing the liberal party or some crony incompetent right wing union mugs.

What a choice. If a choice has to be made, I rather another 4 wasted years with Labour in power than a fanatic like Debnam who has the potential to eclipse Howard in the downgrading our democracy and freedoms we previously enjoyed.

Maybe they'll bring Brogden back after another miserable lackluster performance.

Posted by: Anonymous on February 26, 2007 9:18 PM

There are things I hate about both parties.

I don't like Labor's pro highrise development links and the idea that Costa/Tripodi are very influential members of the government.

Debnam publically seems a bit of a disaster, just doing a lot of embarrassingly desperate things to get attention. The federal industrial relations changes make me depressed and a win would seem like a vindication for David Clarke backroom dealings.

I hope Labor don't win too convincingly, it will give them an undeserved ego boost. And a greater ability to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.

I would like to see more independents. At least there is a chance that they will consider legistlation on its merits. Rather than vote whatever way their party tells them to.

Posted by: Sean M on February 26, 2007 9:50 PM

I think it was never in the bag for the Libs - even with Brogden. Labor have such an overwhelming majority that any strategy would need to be based on 2 elections.

Most people would agree that Iemma and his team do not deserve to win, however I think most people also want a credible alternative which Debman and the NSW Libs are certainly not.

Who would think that with all the weak spots this government has, that Debman and his advisors would think recycled water will be the silver bullet. Did they not think that 12 years of cronic underinvestment in public transport might be a place to start? or maybe the blatant ripping off the driving public with all the toll roads in Sydney. How about the lack of effective policing (and I dont mean minimum sentences or tougher laws - I'm talking about more cops on the street who are not scared to their job). Just a few suggestions where they could start.

Whilst there is some truth that Australian voters 'vote governments out' at the same time they will not just elect any opposition. They need to some confidence that the opposition they elect is up to the job - i.e. labor was on the nose in 93, but Hewson just wasnt the right guy, but then came howard in 96 - say no more.

Apart from offering voters to drink recycled sewerage, and some token Land Tax concessions, Debman has given voters no clear alternative and I think its fair to say that most voters think they will no better off under a Debman government.

To win the many seats that he needs to win, Debman needs nothing short of a miracle.

Posted by: Matt on February 26, 2007 10:39 PM

The recent performance of the State Government is the best reason ever to trade it all in for a'devolved Canberra rule' model. No more cost-shifting in Health. Infrastructure projects planned for the good of the nation rather than competition between the states. A chance to overhaul courts,police and prison systems. A national approach to reducing carbon emissions, water, investment in renewables. No more NSW getting the raw end of the GST deal or representation in the Senate. If we can think global surely we could go national.

Posted by: Lynda on February 27, 2007 12:35 AM

The recent performance of the State Government is the best reason ever to trade it all in for a'devolved Canberra rule' model. No more cost-shifting in Health. Infrastructure projects planned for the good of the nation rather than competition between the states. A chance to overhaul courts,police and prison systems. A national approach to reducing carbon emissions, water, investment in renewables. No more NSW getting the raw end of the GST deal or representation in the Senate. If we can think global surely we could go national.

Posted by: Lynda on February 27, 2007 12:36 AM

OK, so you want a NON CAPITALISED Greens perspective. OK briefly:
• the Greens are not a one-issue party. No Greens party around the world (maybe Uzbekistan is, so target them) runs on one issue.
• Look at their policies before making comments like 'they all want us to own biodiesel vegejuice kombis whilst smoking mull on the right side of the road, and buggering sheep for the environment' (or whatever else is sssslightly funny - no you are not Jon Stewart from The Daily Show)
• Non compromise is a myth - plenty of compromise in Tasmania during their partnership reign there (from hospitals, education & annual budgets) - the minute you are in government, you have to compromise!

So, dealing with reality. Why arent the Greens in power. My feelings:
INTERNAL: internal discipline is not as high as the major parties. So you get a divergence & diversity of views. Looking chaotic. Not great for a population that wants streamlined security/definitie statements about what is or what isnt
INTERNAL2: Factions are m o r e accepted and played out in the open then the ALP. What do I mean? The 'extremist' viewpoint (radical ecology) speaks loudly, and the 'conservative' viewpoint (like the left of the ALP/further left of the Liberal party) is not as loud. So what do people hear?

MEDIA: No they are not to blame, but certain rightwing energies congregrate in mostly the Murdoch press, using tactics that I would call dirty, and showing people the Greens as an evil force. Basically. No, they dont say it, but toning that the Greens will 'wreck' our civilisation as far as we know it.

EDJUKASHUN: Due to lack of political consciousness in a majority of the population, the Greens have had a hard time connecting to a wider stream of the country. Aust is conservative, unwelcoming to major change generally, and willing to keep the same govt in power so long as the bills are paid & they can keep their job. Notice the lack of care about John Howards wider policies.
Coz the Greens are probably seen as, on the lighter side, 'intellectual' and on the other side, 'dangerously militant'. Both of which dont work

CHANGE: Although not Australian, they are the biggest Greens party in the world. The German Greens. Anyone SERIOUSLY interested in this subject, and not just childishly lauching fallacies like combi & marijuana, would be best reading up the Schroeder SDP/Greens Govt of 1997-2006. If any words were to sum them up, it is moderate, pragmatic, compromise, change. Its the Fundis that got left behind. Expect similar here if the Greens rise.

3RD FORCE: Due to adherance to 2 parties, no matter what, 3rd forces get nowhere.

So, those who write off the Greens, they aint perfect, but your fear of an ideologically driven govt has already happened nationwide, and the ideology of banalness with backroom deals, not officially an -ism, is near behind.

Hey, you want to vote for a 2 party system, but grumble for 4 years about this, then freak out at so-called 'freaks', while supporting the rot...well, good luck to you. But dont bring 'truthiness' into this........and I am one partly true voice. Thank you.

Posted by: Eric Vigo on February 27, 2007 4:00 AM

Good article - although I do think you made the two of them sound more interesting and dynamic than they are.

As a life-long Labor voter, Carr at least inspired me in one way - I voted Liberal for the first time in my life last state election. Iemma cannot even inspire me that much - hence, independent or informal are looking increasingly attractive.

Posted by: JS_Syd on February 27, 2007 7:09 AM

posted by Brutus Feb 26 at 6.13 pm
Brutus, nice name, I reckon your brain must have got scrambled when Popeye gave ya one ?
It's just too easy and a no-brainer for the Stan Zemanic listeners like yourself to blame the worlds problems on the dolebludgers, the disadvantaged and the poor. And the " looney left ".
If I do support honest hardworking people, and am against huge tax benefits for the rich, against flat rate taxes and the GST, against huge funding for private schools, against policies that deny the poor a university education, against privatisation of all that the people own, against the wholesale abuse of workers in Australia....
Then that's because I have a social conscience, while people like yourself can only pretend to have one.
Don't bore me with your right wing tory claptrap, go tell it to W26...or better still..do what you are used to doing...ring up Stan and have a whinge.

Posted by: Banjo Ukelele on February 27, 2007 7:16 AM

Nice article Dom, and true Brogden would have stormed home a winner. However there are more then 2 parties running and it is a disservice not to highlight that point.

The upside to this election is that the public can see the two major parties for what they are, conservative back room corporate funded millstones around our necks. This is a chance to remind voters that we live in a representative democracy not a two party state as the media constantly try to tell us. How about a word or two on the numerous good quality independents and the third largest party the Greens. I guess without corporates bank rolling them the Greens and Independents are not as attractive to media outlets looking for the advertising dollar. The Greens are not the loonies that some in the media like to make out, wouldn't be surprised if they do well despite being either ignored by the media or attacked by the usual suspects.

Posted by: Jason L on February 27, 2007 7:40 AM

Independents or Greens. They don't make government.
A few probably do good, but there are enough independents within the major parties. Green or independent voters should wake up to the truth that their votes are directed not by themselves but the leaders for their own advantage, nothing ideological. Wouldn't you rather make the choice.

Voters, make a choice for change.

Posted by: Jess Diaz on February 27, 2007 7:58 AM

You've nailed it! - This really is like voting for either tweedle-dum or tweedle-dummer! I abhore everything the labor/Carr government has done to ruin NSW (and the desalinaton plant is the final straw) but there's simply no way I could seriously vote for Debnam's mob. It's the greens or independants for me......

Posted by: John-Paul on February 27, 2007 9:16 AM

Firstly can I say I don't support either party and will vote for the one I think has the best opportunity to improve the lives of all their constituents.

That leaves a difficult choice but I just can't bring myself to vote for the current government. Over a couple decades they have managed to take Australia's most populous state and turn it into a basket case. By returning them will simply give them a mandate to carry on what they've been doing.

I am fortunate to be where I am and I don't think I will be impacted greatly after the election but I expect many people will and this government won't care less! For example, the minute the election is over the Lane Cove Tunnel will be miraculously finished and I can bet they'll change Epping Road to a 2 lane track faster than a speeding bullet. Why? Because they've got another 3 years to govern before worrying about the next poll.

Lane Cove is one example but there will be many more - I wouldn't be surprised if they change their minds on the traffic modifications in the city and force people to use a very unpopular cross city tunnel (which the tax payers are propping up now regardless of what they say).

The train system will go backward again and the prices will go up for all types of public transport. Why? Because they can and they will.

The people of NSW will give this labour government a mandate to do whatever they want. If they can put this state into recession and get voted back in, wow, what's stopping them?

It's like saying to a child after they're caught stealing "It's alright". It doesn't work. They won't learn anything.

When Wayne Goss's labour government was thrown out and the National's took Queensland over the best thing that came out of that... a labour government that took back the reigns 3 years later, learning from their lesson and look at that state now.

Yes, Queensland has mining, gets GST credits etc etc. It's a much larger state with a smaller population and manages its budget. Something this government can't seem to do although it taxes everyone higher than most. More toll roads (and more to come), higher public transport costs, higher fuel costs, registration costs, land tax... the list goes on.

It's a sad state at present and won't improve in the near future with noddy voted back in.

Posted by: MB on February 27, 2007 9:33 AM

I think we have all agreed that the vote will go to "The Best of A Bad Lot" party- and there is little or nothing we can do about it. So can we resume our normal slag-fest at Radar? This subject is a great big pile of................

Posted by: Blondie on February 27, 2007 11:17 AM

Oh god... Just saw that the polls are declaring a Labor victory in NSW!

That's it - I'm outta here.. I just can't live with ANOTHER 4 YEARS of these clowns..

NSW - you deserve everything you get if you put them back in AFTER EVERYTHING OF THE LAST 12 YEARS!

Posted by: unhappy camper on February 27, 2007 11:34 AM

Labor are by no means great but at least they support the working rights of people such as nurses. Debnam would have everyone working under sweatshop conditions under 'Work Choices' with policy dictated by big business. As a union member, I receive some protection at work (such as guaranteed 4 weeks' leave a year).
I'm not saying Iemma has done a great job, far from it, but the average worker has less to fear from Labor than the Libs.

Posted by: borid on February 27, 2007 12:18 PM

I am lucky I live in an area with a decent independent.

Posted by: Simon on February 27, 2007 12:46 PM

Lynda, you miss the point when you say we'd have infrastructure projects planned for the good of the nation if we ditched the states.

Instead, you'd have infrastructure projects planned for the political advantage of the party in power in Canberra. Look at the way the current mob have blocked state infrastructure projects - such as
wind power in Victoria. There's nothing wrong with competition between the states, it ensure they're kept on their toes.

If anything we should avoid Canberra and go it alone. Imagine if NSW could raise its own income tax and spend it on NSW, rather than having it diverted to Qld to prop up Peter Beattie's subsidises "paradise".

Independence, you know it makes sense.

Posted by: Not Sam on February 27, 2007 12:52 PM

Seems Unhappy camper will have to leave the country. All the other states are Labor .
What about the last 10 years of the Howard government. That is a reason to leave the country!!

Posted by: Robyn on February 27, 2007 1:37 PM

This is not a Presidential election.

The way it works is that you vote for the best candidate in your electorate.
That does not mean that you necessarily vote independant.
It means that the Parties had better make sure that they endorse "best" candidates, "best" in the eyes of the electorate.

If it turns out that the majority of "best" candidates want Debnam for Premier, then that's who becomes Premier.
If it turns out that the majority of "best" candidates want Iemma for Premier, then that's who becomes Premier.

If we all did this we would wrest power from the established parties.

But if you want to think of this as a two-jockey race, then look to the credentials and experience of the two applicants, as you would do for the applicants for any other job.

Debnam, Peter: MBA. Age 51, married, ? children, nearly 10 years in the navy, nearly 10 years in the business world as a consultant, about 13 years in Parliament as member for Vaucluse. Supported by the religious right. (I can't be sure that any of this is correct, because I can't find a web-site that really tells me anything for certain. He must have gone into the Navy aged about 18 and I don't know what rank he rose to.)

Iemma, Morris: LLB, BEc. Aged in his 40s, married 4 children. Son of Italian migrants. About 14 years in Parliament. Has held some ministerial positions. (I don't know anything more about him than that - like what he did before entering politics.)

So how about those of you who know what you are talking about (beyond rusted-on political alliances) tell us why you would a) choose a particular candidate in your electorate, b) choose the person best qualified to lead the state.

Posted by: Lucy on February 27, 2007 1:40 PM

Labor's got to go. Peter Debnam may not be the most exciting or charismatic politician, but he couldn't possibly do worse than Carr or Iemma.

Posted by: Braddles on February 27, 2007 2:12 PM

Green or independent voters should wake up to the truth that their votes are directed not by themselves but the leaders for their own advantage, nothing ideological. Wouldn't you rather make the choice.

Voters, make a choice for change.

Posted by: Jess Diaz at February 27, 2007 7:58 AM

Jess, a couple of points:
(1) Voting Green or independent IS a choice for change - a change from the identikit major parties who do deals for their mates for four years, then ramp up the law and order agenda at election time.

(2) As an independent voter who preferences the Greens, I can tell you that your "truth" about the cnaditates allocating your preferences is a load of cobblers. I have directed my preferences in both houses at every election I've voted at. So do most independent voters. It's the can't-be-arsed-thinking brigade who vote for the major parties who vote above the line (that's why the major parties both supported the introduction of above the line voting)

(3) If the independent candidate is elected, then their preferences are not allocated to others - that only happens once a candidate is eliminated, so they can't benefit themselves by directing preferences a certain way. The only thing they can do is offer a swap, and even then in the lower house it's only a recommendation - voters don't have to follow the how-to vote card you know. Besides, preference deals can be useful information. If an independent claims to be socially progressive, but directs preferences to the Liberals, then as a voter I'd look at that and decide they weren't a person of any integrity, and so not vote for them. Simple.

I agree that having a small number of independents with the balance of power lets those candidates exert pressure on the government to fund projects in the independents' elecorates. Selfishly, that's good if it's my electorate, so that's another reason to vote independent.

Also, if there are many independents, then the power of each is diminsihed, and we get a system where projects only get up if the representatives of a majority of electorates are in favour. That may seem scary to you, but it sounds like democracy to me.

Posted by: JP on February 27, 2007 2:52 PM

Our preference system of voting allows us to more than once. Therefore, if your first preference is for the Greens, this will provide a signal of dissatisfaction with the major parties - and it is rightly deserved. Your next preference will be passed on as a full value vote. This may be to an independent.
It seems to me the best we can hope for, given the "Dumb and Dumber" scenario of Iemma and Debnam, is that either greens or independents will force the resignation of some of the more incompetent ministers, and a more transparent government, by holding the balance of power.

Posted by: boris on February 27, 2007 2:55 PM

Posted by Banjo Ukelele at February 27, 2007 7:16 AM

Banjo Ukelele, stop tip-toeing through the tulips mate and get real. Get rid of your banjo and start playing that violin.
If you think that everyone on the 'right' of Labor holds converse views to those you expressed, then you clearly have a few kangaroos loose up there in the top paddock. Your rhetoric is old and boring. Ever heard of don’t judge a book by its cover? Well, don’t!
I certainly support honest hardworking people, the kind that don’t bum off the rest of society expecting a handout for nothing in return.
Honest means you know you can work and do so. Hardworking means taking a job that’s there – not just the ones which you don’t think is beneath you. If you can’t genuinely can’t work then I am all in favour of society supporting you. If you need assistance getting your life on track/back together or whatever, I also support assistance but within reason. Not a never ending handout to those that abuse the system.
Huge tax cuts that benefit the rich? Chip… shoulder... sound familiar?
Who do you think deserves a tax cut? The person that contributes the least and takes the most from the public purse or the person that contributes the most and bears more of the burden? Under Labor there were no tax cuts. It was take from the rich and run the country into the ground. Through some of the best fiscal management this country has ever seen and had the Libs have been able to return excess govt receipts to all. And it’s a similar story with funding of private schools. Parents that relieve the State govt’s burden of the cost of education with their after-tax income are just as entitled to their share of their taxes going back to the education of their children too.
Your views only indicate a lack of understanding of basic economics. You are the egg before the chicken. And you only fool yourself into thinking you are more socially conscious than the rest of us because it makes the pill a little bit easier to swallow.
You have no idea about being disadvantaged or poor any more than me or the rest of us on this blog.
I look forward to your response when you get back from school…

Posted by: Brutus on February 27, 2007 3:01 PM

So how about those of you who know what you are talking about (beyond rusted-on political alliances) tell us why you would a) choose a particular candidate in your electorate, b) choose the person best qualified to lead the state.

Posted by: Lucy at February 27, 2007 1:40 PM

Well Lucy, in my electorate we have an independent candidate with a stong track record of public service through the emergency services, and a solid business background to boot. They have shown their talent for government by being elected as mayor of the largest local goverment area in our electorate, and running it in an innovative, effective, and financially responsible manner.

Up against this candidate, both major parties have endorsed talentless party hacks with experience in factionalism and little else, who even if they knew what was in our electorate's interests, would be bound to vote on party lines regardless.

It's a no brainer, and I reckon it's a similar story in many electorates.

What better time to give support to truly representative local candidates than when the two major parties are offering such dross?

Posted by: JP on February 27, 2007 3:13 PM

I'd love to help vote out that bunch of incompetent idiots that still somehow think they should be called the Labor Party, but sadly the alternative is even worse.

No matter how much I loathe the Iemma/Carr Government (and I do, they're a bunch of right-centrist developer lapdogs at worst and a bunch of inadequate muppets at best), I can't bring myself to vote for the Liberal Party.

Debnam's first fatal error (as far as I'm concerned, anyway) was the idea of rounding up a couple of Muslim-looking people and charging them with 'anything'. I'm not a Muslim and I don't look Middle Eastern, so I wouldn't directly be affected, but this smacks of totalitarianism. I can't vote for a brownshirt.

The second was the declaration that he'd sack 20,000 public servants. Well, my husband's a state public servant. I don't think I could afford to vote Liberal, even if I wasn't concerned about how 20,000 other families would cope without those jobs.

Also, and I'm aware that these are Federal issues, the Liberals are the party of WorkChoices, cruelty to refugees and slavishly following an incompetent US government into war. Voting in a reactionary premier endorsed by the dangerous religious right would only encourage them!

Posted by: Jaheira on February 27, 2007 3:20 PM

I have received no information from any other candidate in my electorate, other than the sitting member - the 'walrus' David Campbell.
I have written to him, giving my opinion on water-recyling among other things, and have never received a response. I would love not to vote for him, but seriously? where are the other candidates? where are the independants in my electorate? The election may be still 3 weeks away, but please, give us an alternative...

Posted by: actonb on February 27, 2007 3:35 PM

Peter Debnam may not be the most exciting or charismatic politician, but he couldn't possibly do worse than Carr or Iemma.

Posted by: Braddles at February 27, 2007 2:12 PM

Ummm Braddles, why not? He appears worse every time he opens his mouth (and given the record of the Carr/Iemma govt, that's quite an achievement). The only thing in his favour is his promotion of water recycling.

For what it's worth, I tend to vote Independent/Green/Democrat, but have always preferenced Labor ahead of the Coalition. This time I reckon Carr and Iemma have been so diabolically poor that I would have given my preferences to a Brogden-led Coalition. But not Debnam: he seems so smarmy, insincere and unintelligent that he makes my skin crawl.

Posted by: JP on February 27, 2007 3:48 PM

Fellas, it ain't Big Brother or Survivor. "Charisma"? "Most boring election ever had"? Has TV dulled you minds completely? Do you know the difference between spin and facts?

Posted by: Gerard Hopkins on February 27, 2007 4:02 PM

To redsaunas, its not about whether liberals deserve another term in opposition. The issue is whether NSW deserves another term of Labor?

Posted by: Gerard Hopkins on February 27, 2007 4:05 PM

Debnam's idea of rounding up middle eastern looking individuals and charging them with anything amuses me because I have so often been picked as having other descent from what I actually have. At school, several teachers could not tell me and a Syrian girl called Karmah apart.
Also when I was a school child, my mother always sent me to buy the fish because the Greek lady at the shop would favour me with the best fish, saying, "You nice Greek girl." Then the Italian owned milk bar in Katoomba, where we often stopped en route to Bathurst, would give me the best sandwiches with a wink and a nod saying, "You are from Italy!"
The one time this back-fired was in Port Macquarie, when coming up from the beach, sun-tanned, bare footed and grimy with sand and a small dark-haired, brown-eyed child on my hip, looking very indigenous, the Ladies Hairdresser's shop told me that I could not make an appointment - "Not today. No. Not tomorrow. No. Not next week. No. Not at all."
Just for the record, all my ancestors and I, have been born in England, traceable back at least 400 years.

Posted by: Lucy on February 27, 2007 4:10 PM

Posted by: Gerard Hopkins at February 27, 2007 4:05 PM

No Gerard, it's about who would best run the state.

Labor have been dire, to sure, and it could be argued they don't "deserve" another term.

But is that a valid reason to change to something worse?

Posted by: JP on February 27, 2007 4:35 PM

posted by Brutus Feb 27 at 3.01
" I look forward to your response when you get back from school "

Brutus, if I WAS at school, my teacher and my dad might be more than a little concerned with your request.
Your boring tirade on the social benefits of Howard's Economy...you didn't mention any, except to say that it is fair enough that the rich are being paid back for all those years the poor had a good run under Labor.

Maybe it's you who should 'get real' (lol)
did you mean " hey, get real, dude ? " (lol)

Your mate Debnam has as much chance of winning as you have of being an intelligent blogger...none whatsoever.

So....Get Over It !!

Posted by: Banjo Ukelele on February 27, 2007 5:32 PM

Green or independent voters should wake up to the truth that their votes are directed not by themselves but the leaders for their own advantage, nothing ideological. Wouldn't you rather make the choice.

Posted by: Jess Diaz at February 27, 2007 7:58 AM

Wow, Jess you might vote above the line but most Green and Independent voters take great care with their votes and direct preferences themselves based on researching the views of the candidates, ignoring how to vote cards and the apathetic vote above the line option. Can't believe you'd come up with such ignorant rubbish, must be a corporate two party state stooge.

Posted by: Jason L on February 27, 2007 10:41 PM

borid, like so many trade unionists you believe any garbage you are spoon fed. Just because you see a TV advert paid for by the Union movement who obviously want the Labour Party to stay in power, telling you that the Libs will end life as you know it - you believe it. If they said the Libs eat babies and shoot people with an IQ of less than 50 would you believe them? Mind you, if it was true and assuming you are not a baby you would evidently have plenty to fear!

Lucy... I can only assume you went to a haridresser here in Port Macquarie that doesnt make appointments. My wife uses one like that too and she is blonde, fair skinned and I can assure you they don't turn her down because of ethnicity, just a company policy!

Mind you I can think of a number of local shop keepers who are stupid enough to knock back business for their own lunatic reasons - but they won't be in business for long.

As for the "who to vote for" debate the problem is that politics attracts the wrong sort of person. The greedy, self interested, talentless and power hungry who know that if they get in they will be set up financially for life are drawn to it like a magnet and the people who really could improve the lot of the average Australian don't get a look in because they don't kowtow to the right people.

Give me a dictatorship anyday - on the one proviso - that I am the dictator!

Posted by: DavidH on February 27, 2007 11:42 PM

DavidH Feb27 11:42 PM
You missed the point and, in addition, jumped to a wrong conclusion.

You will find that if you can recognise and eliminate such errors in your thinking your political opinions may change.

To explain:
My point was that to fear people because they are of "middle eastern appearance" and say that they should be locked up and charged with anything (as Debnam said) is not the way our system of justice should work.
I know this from first hand experience because my appearance has often led people to mistake my ancestry, sometimes to my advantage, sometimes not.
The incidents that I quoted all happened many years ago and in no way reflect on any hairdresser in Port Macquarie today.
Your conclusion that it was their policy not to make appointments is wrong.
They had an appointment book open on their counter and I could clearly see that they were not booked out on any of the days that I asked them about. I am not complaining about their racism. I am pointing out that appearances lie.

Being what used to be called a wasp, white anglo-saxon protestant, (although actually my ancestors were Celts and Normans), had its advantages. For instance my neighbour who was Italian Catholic was a keen golfer and wanted to join Strathfield Golf Club.
As a first class tailor he had made suits for about ten years for the doctors and solicitors of Strathfield who were golf club members. He often asked them how he should go about joining the golf club, only to be told that there were no vacancies.
Imagine his chagrin when he discovered that my waspish brother who had no great interest in joining, had been invited by these same equally waspish members to join (and did so) after an acquaintance of only a couple of months!
Some years later, when Italians were no longer wogs and multiculturalism was respectable, he became a member.
"Playing the race card" is not a thing to be encouraged. That is one black mark against Debnam.

Posted by: Lucy on February 28, 2007 8:03 AM

Lucy,

If they had appointment books and refused appointments even in the dim distant past there would have been a wonderful opoportunity for you to sue them for such behavior. Would be too late now - they could not possibly be in business. Nowadays that sort of thing could not happen in Port Macquarie because anyone walking away from the beach is covered in red weed - so everyone looks the same!

I accept your point about racism and while not defending Debnam (though I believe his worst blunder was the stupid attack on Debus at the very moment they had Labor on the run)I strongly suspect there is a considerable misinterpretation of Debnams statement about locking up those of Middle Eastern appearance for anything. I confess to having missed that particular statement totally so can't say it is definately wrong, but it is most likely he was over compensating for the political correctness that insists we can't upset certain groups of people because of race colour or creed and that that policy has now resulted in a situation where the Wasps (and indeed Christian imports who are not wasps) which comprise the majority of Australians are being forced to change their way of life to suit a minority group - in this case Muslims.

I do not believe it is racist to accept the fact there were riots a little over a year ago and that a group of people from one ethnic background ended up at war virtually with so called patriotic hoons and that in the wash up whilst many of the patriotic hoons ended up in court, very few of the other group did due to what appears to be a policy of the police to not upset that particular ethnic community. The result is there are gangs freely walking the streets threatenting law abiding citizens as they go about their normal lives and these gangs KNOW they will not be touched by the police in NSW.

By the way, I too am often thought to be of ethnic backround - particularly Mediterranean, despite being Anglo Australian of English heritage. But as I am balding don't have any problems with hairdressers!!!!

Posted by: DavidH on February 28, 2007 9:51 AM

Banjo,
Nice try!
Fact is that people like you will only ever support Labor because of your indoctrinated belief systems – always expecting a handout and then trying to pass off that you are just more “socially minded”. What a load.
Try broadening your mind a little and stop being so rigid with your political allegiances! Have you ever criticised Labor for anything?
I wonder what your thoughts are about the work-for-the-dole program?
At least Howard’s economic policies have lifted Australians to a point where they now see the benefits of getting off their ass and making a go of themselves.
that

Posted by: Brutus on February 28, 2007 10:37 AM

IF YOU PEOPLE ARE SO DISGUSTED AT BOTH LIBERAL AND LABOUR, THEN WHY DONT YOU VOTE GREEN. THEY NEVER GET IN BECAUSE AUSTRALIANS ARE SO APATHETIC THEY CAN'T STAND TO THINK THEY CAN CHALLENGE THE STATUS QUO OF THE TWO-PARTY POLITICAL SCANDAL THAT IS AUSTRALIAN POLITICS IN 2007

----------------------------------
I disagree why vote for a party that doesn't even list it's policies on its web site? Why not vote DEMOCRAT instead? I agree about people voting for someone instead of Labour or Librral....

Posted by: Michael on February 28, 2007 11:00 AM

That's funny. I had no trouble finding the Greens' policies on their website. Or the Socialist Alliance's on theirs, or the Libs' (unfortunately) on theirs.

And while I could find Iemma's "State Plan" I am not going to dignify it by calling it 'policy', but there was other policy there too.

So what's your point Michael? That you can't use the internet? Or are out of touch? (I think the democrats still have rego in NSW, unlike Qld, but look like they're on the way out).

DavidH. 9:51 am.
You are joking! I was amused that the hairdresser thought I was aboriginal, and pitied her for her small-mindedness. I was only there on holidays, not there to change the world. Had I lived in the town I might have done something more than that, but not sued them for not making an appointment.

But you again jump to conclusions. You admit that you don't know what Debnam said but think that you can explain it. "Get the facts, man", before you open your mouth (or tap on your keyboard).

Nobody is forcing "wasps" to change their way of life!

When "wasps" demand that new-comers and indigenous people assimilate, it is the "wasps" who are demanding that other people change their way of life.

Everyone must obey the laws of the land they live in. (That's why Chapelle Corby is locked up in Indonesia where she broke the Law. That's why David Hicks who, it is said, has broken no Australian Law, did not break any Law of Afghanistan where he was arrested, and did not break any American Law at that time on the Statute Book, should not be locked up.) That's as far as it goes. Dress, religious observance, life styles, philosophies, ... should not be imposed by the majority on a minority where no criminal law is involved.

Posted by: Lucy on February 28, 2007 4:38 PM

Lucy,

Whether on holiday or not you should have reported the hairdresser simply to stop their racism from going unpunished. Whether you sued or not would have been secondary to stopping that kind of attitude continuing. For someone as apparently civil rights minded as you to walk away considering it amusing is surprising.

I have tried to find reference to Peter Debnam making comments suggesting people of Middle Eastern appearance should be locked up simply for looking Middle eastern and despite searches on Google under "Debnam racist" and "Debnam Middle Eastern appearance", I found nothing, so had to assume that the statement can't have been exactly as stated in your post or it would have been major news still. Therefore I could only deduce oops sorry, to use your words "jump to the conclusion" that IF he made such a comment he could not have meant it literally or he would probably be in serious trouble as we sit here.

As for your statement that no one is forcing Wasps to change their way of life, you are clearly wrong. Reference to Christmas had to be toned down officially across Australia due to complaints by Muslim organisations and individuals. Christmas decorations were scaled back so as not to offend non Christians in a predominantly Chritian country. Within the education system many changes have been implemented to not offend those of Muslim belief. There is an orchestrated campaign to create an environment where the majority continue to give away many of their accepted traditions to pacify one ethnic group or another, though predominantly those of Muslim or Middle eastern background.

Here in Australia we have a reasonable democracy where indeed the majority do not impose their philosophies on the minorities, the only problem we have right now is that at every turn some Minorities ARE imposing their philosophies on the majority.

As for your reference to David Hicks who according to you "it is said" has not broken any law, I would suggest we all wait and see what he is accused of and then whether that is or was illegal in the country he was arrested in. Like the Debnam story, I have not been able to ascertain exactly what Hicks did or did not do, though the fact he was in Afghanistan with Taliban soldiers would lead me to suspect he was not your average Aussie on holiday in Kabul at the time. I am also not an expert on Afghan law, as you evidently are, but would suspect that shooting at people is probably illegal and he had no more or less right to be there than the Americans did. Mind you in a war, the rights and wrongs are usually decided after the event by the winners and in this case that explains why Hicks is in Cuba about to face trial. its a big call to change history and at the end of the day he will perhaps be judged on whether what he did in Afghanistan was morally acceptable and whether they can prove his intentions were to kill Americans or Australians whilst fighting with the Taliban when he was not an Afghani.

Posted by: DavidH on February 28, 2007 7:20 PM

The real scandal here is the fact that the media continues to support a disastrous Labor gov't.
Posted by J

J. I know I don't get the Sydney rags in my front lawn here, but from my electronic perch I have not detected much media enthusiasm for either party/person. Even the Terror seems lukewarm. As well they might.

Posted by: Kabul Korrespondent on February 28, 2007 7:28 PM

posted by Brutus Feb 28 at 10.37am
Nice try indeed.
Bout time though that you got a few things into that tiny little head perhaps?

Firstly, my beliefs come from my own life experience, and from my right to choose...sometimes to choose ideas and things which are not perfect. And from an appreciation for the big picture
( if you like the little picture, that's ok with me...that's YOUR right to choose.)

Secondly, the fact is I AM NOT ON THE DOLE, don't have any concessions or 'handouts'. I am relatively comfortable, and EMPLOYED...thank you very much...but my life experience, and feedback from others, tells me that I am IN FACT more socially minded than most. If YOU are not socially minded, that is OK with me, it's YOUR CHOICE.

Thirdly, I am not rigid in my viewpoints, being more open-minded than most people I have known. I have often been critical of Labor, just as I have criticised Liberals,Nazis,Socialists,Fascists,and a whole load of others.
But do I have a social conscience ?
You seem convinced that I don't...but how the hell would you know ?? HUH ??
You push a conservative line, and attack anything that 'smells' of left-wing.
So who has the closed,brainwashed, indoctrinated viewpoint. ???
My logic tells me it's one of us,
and it certainly ain't me.

Oh yeah....Work For The Dole ??
Would I work for the dole?
NO NO NO...I would demand a job. A job pays money to live and hopefully save for the future and give social interraction and a sense of 'putting' in. Work for the dole is a disgrace. Just work out the hourly rate for that !! How can we justify our salaries if at the same time, there are people 'working for the dole' at about $5 per hour.?? If you ask people to work say 40 hours for the dole, then pay them at a fair hourly rate. !!
I will be voting LABOR in this election, too bad if you don't like it. And they will WIN !!!

Posted by: Banjo Ukelele on February 28, 2007 7:45 PM

DavidH Feb 28, 7:20 PM
You are still missing the point. People should not be judged on appearances.

Here is an account of what Peter Debnam said,

"The Sydney Morning Herald stated that New South Wales Opposition Leader Peter Debnam promised to round up if elected next March the "200 Middle Eastern thugs" still on the streets of Sydney. "At dawn ... on the 25th of March, my instruction to the police commissioner will be to take as many police as you need and charge them with anything to get them off the streets."http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/2005_Cronulla_riots

From which one might conclude that any young men of middle eastern appearance would be well advised to keep off the streets after dawn on 25th March if Peter Debnam wins the election on 24th March.

And it was major news when Peter Debnam said it, so I don't know where you were hibernating.
You say that " IF he made such a comment he could not have meant it literally or he would probably be in serious trouble as we sit here."
If he did not mean it literally, how did he mean it?

And don't tell me he is only going to arrest "thugs" because if they were behaving "thuggishly" the police would not need to be instructed to "charge them with anything". One wonders what a magistrate would do with a person brought before them "charged with anything" and how much would later be paid in damages for "wrongful arrest".

On another of your points:
There is one quite large group of Australians who accept the imposition of others' religious beliefs without too much comment and complaint. That group is those of us who do not subscribe to any religious beliefs but believe that Christians, Muslims, Jews, Scientologists etc are all living in Lalla Land.
I think that, unlike America, Australia has a considerable population that goes along with Christmas traditions because ... Why Not? The kids like getting presents, and whether there are Christmas Trees or Nativity Cribs in shopping malls is of no concern to them at all. As for Easter - that's chocolate eggs and hot cross buns, and a few days holiday.
But to have Tony Abbott and John Howard trying to impose decisions about abortion or stem cell research on the nation because of their adherence to ancient myths is despicable.
Let those who want their children to sing Christmas Carols take them to Sunday School.
The state education system should not promulgate any particular religion. We do not have an Established Church in Australia.
Fundamentalist Christians are definitely a minority and a minority that hopes to impose its philosophies on the majority.
As for David Hicks, you may have noticed (if you are not still hibernating) that he is no longer charged with attempted murder. He was not fighting when picked up by the Northern Alliance (which was not the Govt. of Afghanistan at that time) but was waiting for a taxi.

Posted by: Lucy on March 3, 2007 12:51 AM

DavidH Feb 28, 7:20 PM
You say,
"Whether on holiday or not you should have reported the hairdresser simply to stop their racism from going unpunished.... For someone as apparently civil rights minded as you to walk away considering it amusing is surprising."

DavidH, to whom do you think I might have reported it and what would I have said? How would I have proved what the reason was for the Hairdresser's actions. "She didn't like the look of me?" There were no anti-vilification or anti-discrimination laws at that time. I am sure that the local Chamber of Commerce and Town Council would have said that hairdressers had the right to refuse to give service on whatever they think are fitting grounds.
Into the bargain I had three small children under the age of five with me. Two days later one of them came down with chickenpox, and the other two likewise soon afterwards, and then we were on our way back to Sydney.

This was back in the days when Ron Casey and his ilk would have been applauded on talk back radio for saying such things as "abos are drunken bludgers who won't work."

Years later, how surprised Arthur Tunstall was that many people did not like his joke about abos in front of Cathy Freeman. For two centuries "abos" have been fair game.

Let me tell you though that times change.
About 20 years later on, I did ring Ron Casey on talk back radio and tell him that I was reporting him for saying just that. (You can look up Sue Javes, the Radio writer for the Telegraph at the time and confirm this). Ron Casey was removed from radio, for the final time (he had been warned before), over this incident and has not broadcast since.
Tell me how your social conscience does more than have you make incorrect statements such as "Christmas had to be toned down officially across Australia due to complaints by Muslim organisations and individuals."
"officially"?
"Muslim organisations" ?
Which, where, when, what?
Some commercially motivated shopping malls may have decided to stick with the trees and tinsel and cut out religious icons. Sydney City Council's Street banners had Christmas messages in several languages. A few kindergartens with non-Christian children may, of their own accord, cut out Nativity plays.
But "officially"?

It is the attitudes that you demonstrate that will lose Debnam this election.

Posted by: Lucy on March 3, 2007 11:29 AM

Like a lot of the people on this blog, I think the only choice for many at this election will be a Green or an indie vote, but I'd like to point out that in NSW electons we don't need to number every box when we vote; as much as I think that a progressive vote should flow on to one of the major parties, if only to elect the 'lesser of two evils', many people will vote 1 green or independent and leave it at that.

And good on them. We need a short, sharp electoral shock, hopefully a hung Parliament with independents and a few Greens (Balmain 2007!) in the BoP. And the Upper House will again be crucial, below the line votes from Green and Climate Change Coalition voters will create great results for transparency in government in NSW, something we've missed for decades.

One slightly unrelated point: just read that the extreme-right nationalist candidate in the French Presidential election wants to reduce the age of criminal responsibility to 10 years. Surely that wouldn't happen in Australia?

Guess there is a lesser of the evils, after all. Utterly incompetent, corporate government or scary, incompetent, fundamentalist government?

Vote for change, but not for the opposition. Greens and indies are the only way to go.